This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Alt Flowers
p.41 #2Alt Flowers
contas wrote:
Hehe , will do coffee flower promise.
Curious, never seen that either. Actually I have no idea how coffee plant looks like. Kinda funny since I drink that daily (tea too).
Same flower, different approach.
Edited on Feb 09, 2013 at 05:27 PM · View previous versions
Hehe , will do coffee flower promise.
Curious, never seen that either. Actually I have no idea how coffee plant looks like. Kinda funny since I drink that daily (tea too).
Same flower, different approach.
Edited on Feb 09, 2013 at 05:27 PM · View previous versions
Feb 09, 2013 at 04:57 PM
p.41 #3Alt Flowers
Mescalamba wrote:
Apparently these are tulips shot on fake Velvia 50 and real Fuji camera. Enjoy.
(S5 Pro, Contax 50/1.4)
Really beautiful tulips! And the backdrop has a nice texture to it.
Apparently these are tulips shot on fake Velvia 50 and real Fuji camera. Enjoy.
(S5 Pro, Contax 50/1.4)
Really beautiful tulips! And the backdrop has a nice texture to it.
Feb 09, 2013 at 05:13 PM
p.41 #4Alt Flowers
jotdeh wrote:
(S5 Pro, Contax 50/1.4)Really beautiful tulips! And the backdrop has a nice texture to it.
Yep I like our kitchen wall too. Its quite versatile. And thank you.
Mescalamba wrote
Apparently these are tulips shot on fake Velvia 50 and real Fuji camera. Enjoy.(S5 Pro, Contax 50/1.4)
Yep I like our kitchen wall too. Its quite versatile.
And thank you.Feb 09, 2013 at 05:23 PM
p.41 #5Alt Flowers
Leica Elmarit-R 135/2.8
This flower was blindingly red. I intentionally underexposed the shot by 2 stops from my 5D's recommendation to avoid completely blowing out the oversensitive red channel. I have no idea how to produce a picture that accurately portrays this real-life color; I suspect it's not possible in my camera or display's color gamut.
http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/2013/0209_leica_135_2.8/redflower.jpg
This flower was blindingly red. I intentionally underexposed the shot by 2 stops from my 5D's recommendation to avoid completely blowing out the oversensitive red channel. I have no idea how to produce a picture that accurately portrays this real-life color; I suspect it's not possible in my camera or display's color gamut.
http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/2013/0209_leica_135_2.8/redflower.jpg
Feb 09, 2013 at 05:59 PM
p.41 #6Alt Flowers
Michael,
I took a stab at trying to deal with the tricky red ... hope you don't mind (will pull if desired). Looks like your 2 stop under was pretty good. the most Red I found was 243. Makes me wonder if 2 1/2 stops under might be a strategy for Sunny 16 red's. Curious to your feedback on the pp rendering.
Edited on Feb 10, 2013 at 12:52 AM · View previous versions
I took a stab at trying to deal with the tricky red ... hope you don't mind (will pull if desired). Looks like your 2 stop under was pretty good. the most Red I found was 243. Makes me wonder if 2 1/2 stops under might be a strategy for Sunny 16 red's. Curious to your feedback on the pp rendering.
Edited on Feb 10, 2013 at 12:52 AM · View previous versions
Feb 09, 2013 at 10:15 PM
p.41 #7Alt Flowers
RustyBug wrote:
Michael,
I took a stab at trying to deal with the tricky red ... hope you don't mind. Curious to your feedback on the pp rendering.
I don't mind. However, I think PP'ing this into more "true to life" color is a futile task (especially if you did not see the real life color). The flower was an intensely pure spectral red that my monitor simply isn't capable of displaying, even when lighting up only red pixels. Your version makes the flower "brighter" by turning it more orange; aesthetically, it's probably a better picture --- but gets further, rather than closer, to reproducing the striking real color. I hope that within the next decade wider-gamut monitors that are up to the task will be available (and camera sensors with awesome color separation).
Michael,
I took a stab at trying to deal with the tricky red ... hope you don't mind. Curious to your feedback on the pp rendering.
I don't mind. However, I think PP'ing this into more "true to life" color is a futile task (especially if you did not see the real life color). The flower was an intensely pure spectral red that my monitor simply isn't capable of displaying, even when lighting up only red pixels. Your version makes the flower "brighter" by turning it more orange; aesthetically, it's probably a better picture --- but gets further, rather than closer, to reproducing the striking real color. I hope that within the next decade wider-gamut monitors that are up to the task will be available (and camera sensors with awesome color separation).
Feb 09, 2013 at 10:26 PM
p.41 #8Alt Flowers
Thanks ... definitely a "shot in the dark" without a reference of having seen it. I assumed the brightest grout to be neutral, and saw the subsequent "orange" come into it, hence the reason I asked.
Thanks ... it gives me something to think about for my own future shooting.
Thanks ... it gives me something to think about for my own future shooting.
Feb 09, 2013 at 10:44 PM
p.41 #9Alt Flowers
RustyBug wrote:
Looks like your 2 stop under was pretty good. the most Red I found was 243. Makes me wonder if 2 1/2 stops under might be a strategy for Sunny 16 red's.
The color channels that you see in the final rendered image are somewhat of a red herring. They have already been multiplied/mixed by the necessary white balancing, so they don't represent the headroom available in the "real" data. In particular, a red value of <255 might already be badly clipped --- the RAW reconstruction algorithm is using residual signals from the other color channels to guess how far above clipping the red actually is. Google for "unitary white balance" to learn how to get closer to the "real" histogram that will tell you about color clipping. Canon sensors tend to produce higher internal RAW values for the red channel, so it clips much sooner that you might expect; hence the advantage of heavy under-exposure, followed by pulling the levels back up in post, for imaging red-heavy subjects (in this particular example, I boosted +0.8 stops in post after underexposing by 2 to produce the image shown).
Looks like your 2 stop under was pretty good. the most Red I found was 243. Makes me wonder if 2 1/2 stops under might be a strategy for Sunny 16 red's.
The color channels that you see in the final rendered image are somewhat of a red herring. They have already been multiplied/mixed by the necessary white balancing, so they don't represent the headroom available in the "real" data. In particular, a red value of <255 might already be badly clipped --- the RAW reconstruction algorithm is using residual signals from the other color channels to guess how far above clipping the red actually is. Google for "unitary white balance" to learn how to get closer to the "real" histogram that will tell you about color clipping. Canon sensors tend to produce higher internal RAW values for the red channel, so it clips much sooner that you might expect; hence the advantage of heavy under-exposure, followed by pulling the levels back up in post, for imaging red-heavy subjects (in this particular example, I boosted +0.8 stops in post after underexposing by 2 to produce the image shown).
Feb 09, 2013 at 10:53 PM
p.41 #10Alt Flowers
Thanks ... I'll look into the "unitary white balance" ... even though I'm shooting mostly on Kodak SLR/C these days.
Feb 09, 2013 at 11:07 PM
p.41 #11Alt Flowers
RustyBug wrote:
Thanks ... I'll look into the "unitary white balance" ... even though I'm shooting mostly on Kodak SLR/C these days.
Then you cant get better colors. Perhaps only Leica DMR or Kodak 645D back.
Thanks ... I'll look into the "unitary white balance" ... even though I'm shooting mostly on Kodak SLR/C these days.
Then you cant get better colors. Perhaps only Leica DMR or Kodak 645D back.
Feb 09, 2013 at 11:16 PM
p.41 #12Alt Flowers
Paperwhite Daffodils, Olympus OMD EM5 + 60 mm macro at f4, tripod:
 |
||
| http://gallerymallery.smugmug.com/Photography/Grass-Valley-and-Northern/i-HnHjQHs/0/X2/Paperwhites%20OMD%20Feb%202013-X2.jpg | ||
|
Feb 12, 2013 at 07:30 AM
p.41 #14Alt Flowers
Spring '13 Right Around the Corner.... 
LeicaR 280/4 APO Nikon 800e
LeicaR 280/4 APO Nikon 800e
Feb 14, 2013 at 09:56 PM
p.41 #17Alt Flowers
I envy with your precious gears and respect your efforts of keep post on alt flower and always wish to give you nice commends.But seem that I didn't do it much .Your flowers always have nice compositions and bokeh but the main description like details of petals, pistils rarely shine, it mustbe not because of the gears .I really do hope you make it better. Sincerely.
Feb 19, 2013 at 12:45 AM
p.41 #18Alt Flowers
if you do not have anything nice to say then don't say it.
I think your photos are simple snapshots without regard for composition, light or angle Contas.
I think your photos are simple snapshots without regard for composition, light or angle Contas.
Feb 19, 2013 at 01:02 AM
p.41 #19Alt Flowers
Pls, I don't need any advice.If you feel something not good on my pics , comment right on them .I never do a personal attack, just I know his try and hope he would be better.No advice pls.
Feb 19, 2013 at 01:49 AM
p.41 #20Alt Flowers
A tiny rose via Kodak SLR/C and Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2 with 12mm extension tube:
Feb 20, 2013 at 07:57 PM